Close the proposed merger with S&P Global
Not delivered by the deadline
AI-confirmed · human review in progress Independent AI checks agreed on primary SEC or regulator evidence. Records are now being reviewed by hand, starting with those our customers order.
- Announced
- 14 May 2021
- Due
- 31 Dec 2021
- Checked
- 21 Oct 2026
- Deadline
- Met
- Late
- Not met
- Today
What the company said
“S&P Global and IHS Markit continue to expect to close the proposed merger in the second half of 2021”
What we found
Evidence strength A What the grades mean
The company failed to close the merger by the end of 2021, as it was still expecting the transaction to close in the first quarter of 2022.
-
A IHS Markit 8-K filed 2022-01-21
“As we continue to expect the merger with S&P Global to close in calendar Q1” ✓ confirmed on the page
Checked 21 Oct 2026.
Commitment lineage
Every time the company restated this commitment. The original is never changed, and the outcome is always measured against version 1.
- Deadline drift +90 days
- 2 versions
-
Version 1 · original · stated 14 May 2021
Deadline 31 Dec 2021 (“in the second half of 2021”) · wording expected
-
Version 2 · stated 21 Jan 2022
Deadline 31 Mar 2022 (“calendar Q1”) · wording expected
“As we continue to expect the merger with S&P Global to close in calendar Q1”
Commitment DNA
The structured record of this commitment. Fields the company did not state are left blank rather than guessed.
- Event type
- Merger
- Indicative materiality
- Transformational rules
- Action
- Close
- Deliverable
- proposed merger
- Language
- Expected (“expects”, “plans”)
- In the company’s control
- Medium
- Specificity
- High
- Conditional
- Yes: subject to the satisfaction or waiver of specified closing conditions
- Depends on
- Regulatory, Partner
How this entry was checked
- Commitment recordedThe company's words were matched word for word against the filing.
- First checkAn AI model, Gemini (Google), read the company's later filings and recorded the outcome with a quoted passage.
- Second check: agreesA different AI model, Claude (Anthropic), re-read the evidence without being told the outcome and reached the same answer.
- Third check on a negative finding: agreesBecause a negative finding could harm a company if wrong, a stronger model re-read the evidence fully blind and reached the same answer.
Confirmed. This outcome counts towards the company's Kept Score. How verification works
Are you IHS Markit? You can publish an official statement next to this entry, free. Add a statement.
Is something here wrong or out of date? Companies and readers can ask us to check it. Please bring a link to a public source.
Report an error in this entry Reference: KI-C-2021-C598014-019061 · Corrections policy